Allright, whats really going on here. I hear from MCtavish one thing and read this. Although I haven't gone to the actual research studies to see what actually happened. I think I will to see what actually happened in these studies. My source is "Attention Deficit Disorders in Adults, A different way of thinking". By Lynn Weiss, PH.D.

1. "The overwhelming majority of individuals with ADD have no history of significant brain injuries" (Barkley, 1998)

2. "Neuropsychological testing of ADD individuals has detected some differences in frontal lobe functions, but those findings are inconsistent". (Barkley, 1997)

3. "Researchers have been unable to document with any certainty neurochemical or neurotransmitter deficiencies as causal factors for ADD" (Barkley, 1998)

4. "Nervous system psychophysiological measures have been inconsistent in demonstrating significant group differences between ADD individuals and controls" (Baumeister & Hawkins, 2001)

5. "ADD neuro-imaging studies have not found evidence for any type of brain structural damage" (Leo & Cohen, 2002; Overmeyer & Tayler, 2001; Frank & Pavakis, 2001)

6. "There is no compelling evidence that pregnancy or birth complications cause ADD" (Barkley, 1998)

7. "Due to serious methodological limitations, the evidence that ADD is caused by environmental toxins, for example, prenatal exposure to alcohol and tobacco smoke or elevated body lead levels, must be viewed with caution" (Barkley, 1995)

8. "No evidence exists to show that ADD is the result of abnormal, damaged, or extra chromosomes. There is convincing evidence of family heredity basis or genetic link for ADD" (Biederman et al., 1995; Faraone, 2000)

9. "Although the present technology of neuro-imaging studies may help determine the volumn and shape of brain structures involved in specific cognitive task, they cannot provide information about the timing and rapid order of neuronal firing, nor can they show the oscillations between cortical and subcortical brain networks that are hypothesized to bind and integrate neural systems" (Durston et al., 2001; Stern & Silbersweig, 2001)

Mctavish, I am not questioning your research at all. I am wondering why there can be researchers who almost contradict anything abnormal about ADD.

Believe me, I'm not seeking abnomality as an answer.

Am I lost? What do you mean by flaws?

THose are kinda old studies. A lot has come out in the last 2 years that addresses your quotes.

Number's two and three, is there still no accurate conclusions that support these?

Research shows that concentration of dopamine tranporters in the frontal lobe is smaller. But, there is an abundance of glutamergic, exciting striatal neurons (spiny neurons) in the striatum.

here, is, the, proof, of difference, juicy

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15949999

sorta' hehe, cna't find actual thing the review was for.

ah, here it is http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T4S-4FRB7YM-1&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F01%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d11f3a131163d5ec9c01ead96b7b64f1

grrr..... 30 dollars, and the full article is yours to absorb!

gotta go, buh I'll be back

It's usually wise, to observe the 'date' of the sources.

There have been many 'advances' in many 'fields'- from 'then' to *now*, and process will continue.

Also- as 'anything', 'authors' have their own, individual, personal and subjective 'style'.

No, most of those quotes are still relevant.

And yes, they do represent interesting contradictions, even when compared to other statements by the same authors.

It seems to us that authors are deprecating the capabilities of imaging techniques and noting the limitations of experimental design more frequently over the last year or so, often right up front. But we haven’t seen any lessening of the impulse to assume there must be a connection to underlying physical artifacts.

Most of these quotes are telling us what those artifacts aren’t, in one way or another. They don’t exactly deny the physical connection, and some of the statements could be taken as apologia for the lack of data supporting that idea to date. In other words, ‘we don’t know what causes AD/HD because our methods and equipment aren’t yet good enough to see it’.

As to why there’s this sort of contradictory message, well, they’re all human, and likely pretty much like us under the hood. (grins)

It’s easy to make this kind of mistake, especially when the subject of your study is also the tool used to gather and analyze data. The entire field of brain and mind research has been mired in this problem for years, and lately there’s been a lot of churning around, trying to lift out of the muck.

To an extent, it’s worked. We were at a point ten years ago in our own work in which we had reasonably complete models of many important aspects of the brain and mind, notably those that are directly or indirectly implicated in speech.

That covers quite a bit, most of it, in fact, although we of course skipped digging into details where we could get away with it. Comparing our models with existing research revealed a huge gap, most apparent in the lack of a coherent global view of any sort. Our models in a sense derived from the global view, although they’re based on principles that reflect a strictly ‘bottom up’ approach.

We moved on, but occasionally checked in to see how things were progressing. Until a few years ago not a lot was happening related to that missing global perspective. Now, though, they seem to be gaining on it. For a nice little not-too-technical take on what’s going on currently, check out the latest issue of Time Magazine (Jan. 29th).

Apparently by magic, the research community has found their way to understanding many of the foundation principles of our models. Pretty neat, huh? We say it over here and it comes out there, with no obvious connection between points A and B.

Of course, we aren‘t really responsible; the connection is that we’re all using the same brains, and give or take a bit, this is what anyone can do with the state of the art these days. It would be surprising if we didn’t agree in most respects, and the couple of years lead we got on the community at large is probably more indicative of the amount of effort we put in than any inherent advantage.

But there are some notable exceptions, stuff we’ve been mentioning from time to time here in the forums for a few years. It’s the same problem you’re seeing in AD/HD research, caused by the same flaw in the common approach.

Which makes sense; they’re studying the same general part of the anatomy, and looking in many cases at the same functions. So the question really is this: why do these problems continue to bother us, if we’re all cruising along at the very peak of creation?

Let’s look at one example, the relatively new conceptual model known as ‘mirror neurons’; it’s exactly the problem Barkley and the rest are having with their work.

When the idea of ‘mirror neurons’ was first proposed, the research community assumed there were unknown details of the brain that were slowing our understanding of phenomena like consciousness, variations in common behavior, and so on.

Some serious folks proposed the existence of specialized neurons, including one Nobel Prize winner who was certain a ‘consciousness’ neuron must exist. Mirror neurons were initially thought to be exactly such a construct.

Now, only a few years later, even the diluted perspective Time Magazine presents describes mirror neurons as ordinary neurons that are specially connected. What happened in that short time to change the underlying model so dramatically?

The answer to that wasn’t an easy sell a few years back, but that shift in view makes it more accessible now. The interesting bit is that the new perspective is still broken; mirror neurons do not exist, not even in the sense that they’re delineated by special kinds of connections.

What researchers mistake for mirror neurons are just ordinary neurons doing their ordinary job, nothing special about it at all. The connections are dictated by the function, as is the expectation of local areas displaying a concentration of one type or types.

So the phenomenon that researchers call ‘mirroring’ is basic to the normal function of neural structures. Understanding this detail is essential to understanding how the brain supports ordinary human communication, so we spent quite a bit of time on it over the years. When mirror neurons were ‘discovered’, we were already old friends.

The reason the idea of mirroring was introduced at all is that researchers were able to correctly deduce that their scans and other related experimental data showed neural structures apparently ‘mimicking’ details of the external environment of the subject.

They realized this could possibly explain how neural wiring of a particular form might help generate the highly abstract experience of empathy, for one of many similar examples. And they were on the right track, close to the answer, in fact, but they still had the wrong train.

They’ve switched from the local to the express, but it’s still not going to get them to the station they want. The fundamental problem is that they’re looking right at rrreality, the internal model in which we all experience being, and which is, for all practical purposes, actually real.

So when they talk about some mirror neuron structure ‘mirroring’ a mother’s caring smile in the mind of an infant, they’re both right and wrong. Strange though it may seem, that neural model actually is the mother’s smile, not a copy at all.

There are a lot of relatively obscure technical details that we’ll skip over here, but one bears brief mention. Part of the reason that neural model actually is the smile is that the related meaning, central to every important aspect, only arises within the context of the mind.

What these researchers are doing is peeking in on reality in the making, and that in itself is pretty remarkable. The primary reason they feel the need to elevate the status of these neural structures is they haven’t yet worked through the details of how we all experience reality, and they don’t recognize it for what it is.

What they’re seeing is special, but it’s intrinsically special. Every neural structure is special in a similar way, even those that don’t model reality directly. That’s going to be an important point sometime in the future, when they start to probe what’s happening when we experience conscious awareness in areas of the brain’s neural mass that we don’t normally visit.

If this still seems like a stretch to y’all, well, that’s OK. We can’t go too deep into details here, for obvious reasons. We could look at some of it on a different thread, and we’ve gone that route in the past. But it tends to take the focus away from the big picture.

There are some relevant details of the bigger view that still give us a warm buzz about our models. For example, they allow us to recognize this exact same problem, currently tearing up the physics community, and infecting mathematics, too.

Specifically, researchers have failed to think in detail about what it means to perceive an event. With minor exceptions, they’ve neglected to consider how our view is colored by the natural phenomena that we exploit to perceive reality, primarily the ordinary quantum mechanical interactions of the standard model.

We use photons to effect vision, for example; that implies a bias in both our perception and the physical intuition it supports. Many of the most difficult problems go away when you add the physics of perception to the model, along with the processes by which we identify and store patterns in what we perceive.

An example of that is the ongoing problem of describing the extra dimensions that pop up in most modern theoretical frameworks. It’s not that researchers are bothered by the lack of a good, intuitive description; they’re used to spooky, counterintuitive consequences accompanying new understanding.

But the lack does affect their perception of the problems; most researchers expect a successful theory to explain why we don’t ‘see’ those extra dimensions, or perhaps make them go away. There’s persistent talk of dimensions so tiny we would miss them, all curled up on themselves at some inconceivably small distance, and so on.

And all of it’s totally bogus. You would expect these guys to get it right if anyone can, especially given the remarkable contribution to recent successful theories of various methods of suspending exactly that sort of physical intuition, and the attendant expectations.

The same considerations of how we perceive reality, the actual nuts and bolts of the process, deeply affect the form of concepts like mirror neurons, too. Mistaken impressions of exactly how much physical intuition infects our view can mislead anyone, regardless of what disciple they pursue.

And over here, in this corner, Barkley and the rest are suffering from the same problem. As much as they want to avoid allowing their expectations to color their interpretation of experimental data of all kinds, they’re overlooking some of the biggest, most fundamental traps.

And as long as they do, they’re going to occasionally fall in, and have a much harder time formulating models that accurately represent what’s going on in our heads to generate our particular experience. Contradictions always hint at ambiguity, and ambiguity usually means some important perspective is either missing or obscured.

‘K? Nuff said for now…

Research shows that concentration of dopamine tranporters in the frontal lobe is smaller. But, there is an abundance of glutamergic, exciting striatal neurons (spiny neurons) in the striatum…
Thanks for the great example; we couldn’t have picked one more appropriate.

Really. (grins…)

There’s some doubt that these conclusions are possible, given the current state of the art of instrumentation. They imply they’re directly observing real neurochemistry, but it’s likely there are several layers of assumptions between their data and the real deal in the brains of their subjects.

But that’s kind of a red herring, because presumably this is merely a technical limitation that we can hope to overcome. Here’s where it really runs into trouble:

“Convergent data from neuroimaging, neuropsychological, genetics, and neurochemical studies have implicated dysfunction of fronto-striatal structures (lateral prefrontal cortex, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, caudate, and putamen) as likely contributing to the pathophysiology of ADHD.” (Functional neuroimaging of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a review and suggested future directions Bush G, Valera EM, Seidman LJ.) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15949999)

The same error we described in our previous post is at work. Basically, the idea that a ‘pathophysiology of ADHD’ exists hasn’t been established.

We know that the behavioral artifacts that are necessary to the definition of AD/HD occur as a consequence of a logical process, and aren’t directly due to any physical process. Absent a complete rationale for the connection between the logical and physical elements, there isn’t any reason to consider the authors’ conclusions.

The effects they’re studying are all implicated in the physical mechanisms that support the logical processes actually responsible for behavior, and therefore AD/HD. Without some understanding of the connection between the two, there’s absolutely no way to predict the effect of the variations noted, or even if we should expect there would be an effect.

Their data might be interesting, but you’ll have to provide your own framework for any valid conclusions. It’s really their job to get this part right, but as we said, when it comes to studying the brain, everything goes a little flooey…

stabile!!

its anything to do with anything to do at all,
or not?

why do people claim they have ADD/HD?
and what has it to do with anything at all.
grins,
nothing?

LOL

spiny neurons,
ya,
the concentration in certain areas

i think the obvious difference is something our kind cannot explain.
does it need explanation?

personally,
I can live w/o meds for awhile at a high energy level,
but I can't even stop the changes from happening.

when changes occur,
my energy,
my mind is not in my control completely,
no way it is.

those that see negative,
and those who see positive are quacks

those who see the yin-yang interaction of 2 fundamental forces are in the Now.

when one sees and experiences heaven on/inside earth.

and all things

lol

mirror neurons were initially thought to be exactly such a construct.hehe,
"reality is not a construct,
reality is *clap*."
sound
(alan watts)

the web,
our universe is extensions of us,
like the spiders web.

Spiders catch flies without doing anything.
It's illusionary,
it hides,
it makes the web beforehand,
and pretends it's not worried about food in the meantime.

good game,
quite artful,
it's magic in a sense,
is illusion.

so stupid,
one side of the coin seems,
until it becomes what it really is.

life was never what you saw,
you don't see the magic,
only the returns the response from the actions.

well,
one is illusion,
or does not try to hold that back,
they can see behind the magicians back.

those who know they are the magician too,
persecuted ignored,
concentrated and hidden by,
what kind of work can hide it?
hmm...

stabile,
do you think sound is easier to understand?


gotta go drop my brother off for a game, literally

i'll be back

later

in the meantime,
give up frowning.

i'll know,
if you frown,
haha

sound as feel
->-
heat (infra-red)
->-
light (visible spectrum)
->-
dark light (UV)

... we ascend.


>|......|......|....|...|...|..|..|..|..|.|.|...>

::ADD:: as inexorable ascension.

i think the obvious difference is something our kind cannot explain…
(Haven’t looked at what SB had to say yet, but as I notice he posted something, please pardon us if we double up.)

That is exactly what our theory says: there are two modes of using neurons to think, but they’re not different. Instead, one is an extension of the other, older mode.

There are simple technical reasons that users of the more complex mode can’t explain what’s different about it to users of the older, simpler mode (which to be fair, can be pretty complex in its own right).

It all makes sense when you add to the equation this bit of info: language is an artifact of the older mode, so it automatically restricts what we can say to a subset of what we can think.

(As long as we don’t try to talk too much to ourselves about it while we do it, that is…)



which there isn’t any point in repeating…
Nicely put. You’ve clearly been taking lessons from some of the more adventurous members, or at least, paying attention…

That’s one of the better exercises for pushing back the limitations of legacy language. We don’t know exactly where we’re all going, but Kay and I have experienced entire complex conversations during which no noticeable verbalization took place.

We can independently prove beyond any doubt (to anyone, not just ourselves) that the communications took place, which seems like a good starting point for digging into human communication in general, and odd aspects of it particular,

doesn’t it?


stabile,
do you think sound is easier to understand?
Sound sure is different, and that can help.

Of course, the verbalization associated with ordinary language is sound, too, but we get what you mean. (grin)

::ADD:: as inexorable ascension
Ahhh, yes…

OK,
you remember the conversation,
(thanks BTW,
I think it's neat too,
easier for me to get what I'm actually writing.

I wrote w/my left hand for a month or so,
too.
still,
i'm right dominant now while not fearing to use my left,
more than usual. :)

OK,
the conversation without words,
lol.

my imagination is telling me,
uh oh,
well,
words I get that words were not exactly there.

sometimes words may not be there,
when I am writing,
is this,
neither,
good nor bad?

Lessons from the more adventurous members**
i think I have,
in the effect I have been,
they have too,
me thinks.

Almost,
nothing real changes...

So,
tell me reality,
the ultimate of things,
so ^^ I can learn,
through the interaction,
'I' alone do not see.

If I changed,
I is not real,
that action,
is.
(?)

Loving reality,
and ADDers,
love that changing,
of perspective.

(((((
uhh... so late,,
!
but it's early,
!
hahaha,
perspective...
)))))

A game,
the escape from reality,
is,
important.
importing into our collective conciousness,
we will come to mirror our alter reality,
while in reality is wierd.



As it changes,
does not tell what it should be,
but shows the way,
things are,
isolated fantasy,
ignorant of the illusion,
reality,
may be (?).


One more venture:

On Attention

It's morally wrong on the deepest level,
that is,
judging based on content of attention
(((?)))

I can feel that I am not wrong when someone does this,
to me,
forgoing themselves,
of course,
so effortlessly. (pukes)

i am not wrong,
(imagined dillemma of the past with a twist I add)
b/c you are,
reason being,
you are not aware of your wrongness,
which is the foundation of your accusation,
and you are too heavy,
so there.:p

So you have fallen,
though I just lifted you back to your feet and senses.

Bythe way,
no - one here is who I associate with my conversation, and it has not historically provable to have happened b4.

And I cannot focus,
i will not force,
there is no destination here.

bye all,

qinkin

Perhaps their's more than one cause of adhd. Adhd is a cluster of symptoms. Perhaps it's not a neurotransmitter per sa, rather under or over activity in specific brain regions.:confused:

Allright, whats really going on here. I hear from MCtavish one thing and read this. Although I haven't gone to the actual research studies to see what actually happened. I think I will to see what actually happened in these studies. My source is "Attention Deficit Disorders in Adults, A different way of thinking". By Lynn Weiss, PH.D.

1. "The overwhelming majority of individuals with ADD have no history of significant brain injuries" (Barkley, 1998)

2. "Neuropsychological testing of ADD individuals has detected some differences in frontal lobe functions, but those findings are inconsistent". (Barkley, 1997)

3. "Researchers have been unable to document with any certainty neurochemical or neurotransmitter deficiencies as causal factors for ADD" (Barkley, 1998)

4. "Nervous system psychophysiological measures have been inconsistent in demonstrating significant group differences between ADD individuals and controls" (Baumeister & Hawkins, 2001)

5. "ADD neuro-imaging studies have not found evidence for any type of brain structural damage" (Leo & Cohen, 2002; Overmeyer & Tayler, 2001; Frank & Pavakis, 2001)

6. "There is no compelling evidence that pregnancy or birth complications cause ADD" (Barkley, 1998)

7. "Due to serious methodological limitations, the evidence that ADD is caused by environmental toxins, for example, prenatal exposure to alcohol and tobacco smoke or elevated body lead levels, must be viewed with caution" (Barkley, 1995)

8. "No evidence exists to show that ADD is the result of abnormal, damaged, or extra chromosomes. There is convincing evidence of family heredity basis or genetic link for ADD" (Biederman et al., 1995; Faraone, 2000)

9. "Although the present technology of neuro-imaging studies may help determine the volumn and shape of brain structures involved in specific cognitive task, they cannot provide information about the timing and rapid order of neuronal firing, nor can they show the oscillations between cortical and subcortical brain networks that are hypothesized to bind and integrate neural systems" (Durston et al., 2001; Stern & Silbersweig, 2001)


I would claim my initial thought was edited by ADD chemical control but I forgot to take my medication so I must be in charge of editting this thought ---> A very scary thing.

I have not read all the responses I did notice that quicken and SB have similar patters in their writing, in the way they arrange their text on the page, while I was scrolling through. I will reiterate my belief is that ADD in a contextual disorder. . . . .which is why it can be an impairment in one area and not another. ADD isn't as much of an abnormality as it is a variation which mean some variations in "neuro firing" variations during different task maybe detected. This should be expected because we could be using the brain differently but it doesn't make it inferior. It is only considered inferior because the blue print for "normal" (or should be) is done by a majority which happen to be nonADDers.

We are different compared to them but them again we are different even when compared to each other. . . . .and even non-ADDers are different in some ways from other non-ADDers. Due to my experiences here I find non-ADDers have their own quirks. . . . and will pop in a thread with an off topic comment just like an ADDer. . . .kind of makes me wonder if ADD is contagious or soem thing. . . . .All of this brings us to the same conclusion as the one that brought us to this site to begin with . . . .we function differently than a majority of the population. Not much of a news flash when it isn't posted with a bunch of numbers only a few comprehend while being combined with jargon that only holds meaning for those same few but the conclusions is basically the same. . . . . really.

Better run, I think some thing is burning that shouldn't be, apologies if I repeated an already presented point.

Apparently by magic, the research community has found their way to understanding many of the foundation principles of our models. Pretty neat, huh? We say it over here and it comes out there, with no obvious connection between points A and B.

Yea it happens to me quite a bit tooo. Means wow I have a brain and it works. Always good to know.






Of course, we aren‘t really responsible; the connection is that we’re all using the same brains, and give or take a bit, this is what anyone can do with the state of the art these days. It would be surprising if we didn’t agree in most respects, and the couple of years lead we got on the community at large is probably more indicative of the amount of effort we put in than any inherent advantage.

Hmmm I guess this applies as well.





The same considerations of how we perceive reality, the actual nuts and bolts of the process, deeply affect the form of concepts like mirror neurons, too. Mistaken impressions of exactly how much physical intuition infects our view can mislead anyone, regardless of what disciple they pursue.

And over here, in this corner, Barkley and the rest are suffering from the same problem. As much as they want to avoid allowing their expectations to color their interpretation of experimental data of all kinds, they’re overlooking some of the biggest, most fundamental traps.

I agree here also. . . .I still can’t understand why they weren’t as obvious to other as they were to me. Mind boggling


But man can they sure claim to know what it is all about and with such sarcasm at times . . . . . .the Barkley wars. . . . .don’t miss them. :o





And as long as they do, they’re going to occasionally fall in, and have a much harder time formulating models that accurately represent what’s going on in our heads to generate our particular experience. Contradictions always hint at ambiguity, and ambiguity usually means some important perspective is either missing or obscured.

I think their box is too darn small. . . .can’t fit all the diversities of people in there.





those that see negative,
and those who see positive are quacks


How about those that see the same trait as being both negative a positive. Much depends on the circumstances and the expression of said trait as well as the individuals intention and the reponse recieved from the enviroment ect. . . .





sometimes words may not be there,

But the absence of words is doesn’t mean absence of thought. I rarely think in “words” unless I am trying to stop them from spilling out of my mouth. I recently found I do not even read words really. Which makes writting with them sort of suck because of the limitations and all the times it takes to converse in a limited manner.The unlimited is mch quicker and more "natural" for me any way.





Loving reality,
and ADDers,
love that changing,
of perspective

The perspective multiplication is the real cool part, if we add to our perception then it does change if any thing it does with your vision even though what you are viewing has always been there you just haven’t consciously been aware.


Btw you are even writing more like SB in my opinion, you two to must be reading the same books. (or each other's post)






Perhaps their's more than one cause of adhd. Adhd is a cluster of symptoms. Perhaps it's not a neurotransmitter per sa, rather under or over activity in specific brain regions

I hope you are in an abstract mood because I am. I just got done with quickins and post and he is rather an abstract individual

under or over in specific brain regions may be perfectly natural for ADDers, it isn’t necessarily an abnormality because it is different than some one who is a “NTers” ? Brown eyes would seem quite abnormal in a blue eyed world would they not?

Okay let me see if I can get the rest out

Maybe an example of what I am trying to say will help my thought come out of my brain into these symbols on this screen. . . .

Here is some thing that is for real that may do nicely here.

I recently read on MedScape article’s name is “Why Medications don’t work” (for those who have access and wish to look it up) It says that when you take a selective serotonin uptake inhibitor like paxil the chemical effects upon the brain take place within 30 minutes. So when some one swallows a paxil for the first time the chemical changes that decrease the amount of serotonin being taken up is immediate, however it takes up to five days for any changes to be manifested. It is the why factor, why do the effects of pixil take five days to become apparent when the chemical changes take effect with in an hour?.

The chemical effects of Adderall take place in about the same amount of time but the clinical effects are noticed as the chemical changes are made. Again Why?


Medical science can use test to show that taking a selective serotonin uptake inhibitor over a period of time relieves the symptoms of depression in a majority of people but the chemical change doesn’t produce the decrease in depression because the chemical changes occur with in an hour while the relief takes five to ten days to begin and up to four to six weeks for highest possible effectiveness to be evident even though the paxil’s peek effect upon the chemistry is about three hours. So brain chemistry changes are not the entire equation only a part. The time lapse in SSIRs illustrates this nicely.


It appears that the changes in serotonin effects some thing else further up stream but no one knows what. Therefore if medications such as paxil fail to work for some medical science doesn’t know why. Before one can know why a medication doesn’t work they must first understand HOW it works and why (thus the name of the article)

Ever notice if an ADD medication does work the doctor can’t tell you why. They do not know why Adderall works for some better than Ritalin, nor do they have clue one why 20% of individual who have the same ADD symptoms as the rest of us do but fail to respond to ADD medications like the rest of us do. They don’t even know why some people have side effects while others do not, they don’t know why I am 120 pound woman can take 80-100mg of Adderall a day and get relief without side effects but give the same dose to a 200 pound man and he will show signs of being over medicated and have a zillion side effects. They aren’t even sure what causes a lot of the medications side effect period. The observations some medication simply do not “gel well” with certain individuals biochemistry, okay the individual having the serious side effect realizes this minus special medical training. In other wards the doctor doesn’t really know any more than the patent how ever because of his medical training he may have a few more possible theories, but that isn’t the same as knowing.

So no they haven’t a clue why some of us have “ADD symptoms” while a majority of people do not, never mind know why some of us are hyperactive and others not and the zillions of other individual expressions of the so called neurobiological condition. So nzkiwi your theory is as good as any, as is Stabile's, mine, and McTavish's. Some thing I have been trying to get accross for oh about a year give or take a few months. (this is why I was hoping you were in an abstract mood)

My three page post limit and time for me to get ready for work (ba-hum-bug)

Laters

The majority of diagnosed ADD/ADHD is people who don't have any evidence of traumatic brain injury (70%). It's a genetic condition. At least two of the genes associated with ADD/ADHD have been identified.

Now, when one considers it's a syndrome, not a specific disorder, and that it's thought that there might well be HUNDREDS of genes involved and contributing to it. Then one further considers that it falls under 'normal genetic neurological variation' in humans, it's not suprising they aren't finding pathological issues or consistent differences.

Imaging technology, for starters, isn't high resolution enough to do the job. For finishers they won't ever find a pathology for ADD not due to head injuries. It's a variation in functionality not a failure of some system or subsystem to work. It can cause failures under certain conditions, but as a "DISORDER" in modern society it's almost entirely contextual.

You won't find population geneticists calling ADD a disorder because they don't regard it as one.

While I'm on the subject, I don't believe it's appropriate to diagnose persons with 'ADD like' symptoms with ADD under the same umbrella. There are distinctions between the two groups.

another example of a 'contextual disorder' would be dyslexia. Reading and writing are not 'natural' human behaviors and it's not at all suprising that some people are wired in such a way that makes it uncommonly difficult for them to learn these behaviors. They aren't broken though. We simply refer to them as though they are because in the context of a modern society in which reading and writing are common place and necessary behaviors they certainly seem broken to those who don't have the issue.

ADD is similar. The genes associated with it, have the same frequency of occurence in hunter gatherer tribes (I can say this with more than a little confidence for the simple reason that humans are among the least genetically diverse mammals on planet earth, having gone through a population bottle neck sometime in the last 40 - 80 thousand years. Every living human is descended from a group of between 250 - 2,500 individuals in that time frame.). However, there is no observed equivalent pathology in such groups. ADD's frequency in the gene pool suggests that it is adaptive (two percent or more of a population having a genetically determined trait strongly suggests the trait is adaptive and propogating). While it's clearly not adaptive in the "modern societal" context, it's important to keep in mind that from a geological time perspective (biological change occurs on this time scale) modern society isn't even a blink of the eye, so to speak. Our biology hasn't had the opportunity to catch up with cultural and technological change. So, it's not unusual to find that the rather arbitrary construction we call modern society isn't a one size fits all deal.

We have a colossal error within the medical sciences - currently - which goes something like ...
->-
evolution of functions (eg biochemical functions)
biochemical function breaks ->- disease

Nature's not that dumb.

The mind and evolution hold the secret to the truth underlying the so-called diseases and disorders of the centre (especially mind) - but also of many of the diseases and disorders of the periphery.

Many of the many current disorders are simply side-effects of our evolution - whereby - nothing 'as such' is broken - think of it more as evolution borrowing some previously successful chemical reagent - that new function (for the old reagent) - becoming particularly well-used (towards progressing our evolution) - and its elevated {usage,levels} bleeding back into the former biological process.

Many examples including the allergic diseases - which may well be shown to be related to the neurotransmitter ~histamine~
Obesity - related to the elevated demands which a more evolved {brain,mind} has for neurotransmission or stimulation
... and Type II Diabetes - which I believe may be shown to be related to a shift in pattern of neuronal metabolic activity.

20 years into medical research - and I'm overcome by an incredible doh!!! - every time I think about it - because - it's all kinda' obvious really.
Therein lies the power of these ideas.
There's gonna' be some mighty confused professors of Medicine wandering about - wondering why they were so caught so frightfully unaware.

Makes me smile it does.
Because - these are the same few - who express a kinda' inflexible fundamentalism in their own infallibility.

No matter how they change - their previous publications will hold a pemanent reminder of their previously delusional illusions of grandeur.

Every *time* you *speak*, YOU make me smile, Twinny.:D
Thank you !


We have a colossal error within the medical sciences - currently - which goes something like ...
->-
evolution of functions (eg biochemical functions)
biochemical function breaks ->- disease

Nature's not that dumb.

The mind and evolution hold the secret to the truth underlying the so-called diseases and disorders of the centre (especially mind) - but also of many of the diseases and disorders of the periphery.

Many of the many current disorders are simply side-effects of our evolution - whereby - nothing 'as such' is broken - think of it more as evolution borrowing some previously successful chemical reagent - that new function (for the old reagent) - becoming particularly well-used (towards progressing our evolution) - and its elevated {usage,levels} bleeding back into the former biological process.

Many examples including the allergic diseases - which may well be shown to be related to the neurotransmitter ~histamine~
Obesity - related to the elevated demands which a more evolved {brain,mind} has for neurotransmission or stimulation
... and Type II Diabetes - which I believe may be shown to be related to a shift in pattern of neuronal metabolic activity.

20 years into medical research - and I'm overcome by an incredible doh!!! - every time I think about it - because - it's all kinda' obvious really.
Therein lies the power of these ideas.
There's gonna' be some mighty confused professors of Medicine wandering about - wondering why they were so caught so frightfully unaware.

Makes me smile it does.
Because - these are the same few - who express a kinda' inflexible fundamentalism in their own infallibility.

No matter how they change - their previous publications will hold a pemanent reminder of their previously delusional illusions of grandeur.

ADD isn't as much of an abnormality as it is a variation which mean some variations in "neuro firing" variations during different task maybe detected. This should be expected because we could be using the brain differently but it doesn't make it inferior. It is only considered inferior because the blue print for "normal" (or should be) is done by a majority which happen to be nonADDers.
That’s exactly it, and remember this: we all carry that same blueprint, more or less. So we tend to beat ourselves up, and it actually feels right, in a deep way.

But the important point in there is the bit about what we should expect to see when we compare a normal brain with an ADDers brain.

We know that there have to be differences between AD/HD and normal brains

(because brains ‘generate’ behavior, and behavior defines the difference),

and those differences must be reflected in neurochemical differences

(because neurochemistry is part of how the activity of collections of neurons is determined [the rest being the connections], and the activity of collections of neurons is what determines behavior).

So a researcher going in knowing there are differences in behavior should expect to see differences at the neurochemical level; so far, nobody we know of has shown that those differences aren’t exactly what we would see with ‘normal’ neurons operating in both brains.

We expect a small range of normal variability, of course, and it’s possible that does have some relationship to the appearance of AD/HD. But it’s incorrect to assume there are functionally significant differences at the neurochemical level. Fool with things too much, and the neurons stop working. We know that’s not happening.

The red herring in the question of the role of neurochemistry is the fact that our drugs work. The initial assumptions about what the effects might be are still tainting the way researchers think about the problem, but they were at best clumsy, and mostly just plain wrong.

The fact that some of the terms used sound like they should mean something they don’t doesn’t help, either…

…and here’s a good example of how the assumptions about the significance of drug activity can be subtly wrong, even when you can show what the direct effect of a drug is likely to be in a moderately convincing way…


It appears that the changes in serotonin (due to the action of Paxil) affects something else further up stream but no one knows what…
I don’t know about that; we certainly think we have a reasonable model, a good place to start if we wanted to look at this problem, which we don’t.

We don’t have the resources, anyway. I think this is just one more example of their box being the wrong size; the research community should have a much better feel for what’s going on with stuff like Paxil than they do.

We know that levels of neuroactive chemicals are regulated in the brain. Our view is that the immediate effects on serotonin uptake change the balance on a cellular level, but the effect is almost unnoticeable to both the med staff and the patient.

So much for the simple ‘too much (or little) of something’ theories, eh?

The only effect we know of that should have the approximate time scale of the clinical effects of drugs like Paxil is the adaptation of those regulatory mechanisms. We don’t know the details of what happens with Paxil, but we do know it should take about that long for the information associated with the actual regulation to settle into place.

Think of it as a control system, like the combination of PID controllers and SCADA systems that make the largest possible percentage of the right stuff come out the far end of a chemical plant.

The information flow and the constants that tune those controllers to optimize the process are a logical model of the dynamics of the process itself. Since the dynamics are pretty much all anyone cares about, we can say the combination of controller constants and interconnections form a logical model of the process.

The regulation of neurochemicals in the brain requires a similar logical model, which we can be certain is constructed with neurons. And whenever there’s some shift in levels due to external forces (like regularly ingesting Paxil, for example), the model must be changed.

For models instantiated as structures of neurons, change means one or both of two things: adding or deleting connections, and changing the weights of connections. Both take some time, enough (for example) that we can be certain that we don’t change weights and forge new connections to remember something that just happened.

We do that to remember things that happened more than a short time ago, though, and this is what underlies the existence of two different kinds of memory, short term and long term.

That time scale to build permanent memories is shorter than the time it takes for Paxil to have its desired clinical effect, but if we’re changing the neural model that regulates levels of something like serotonin, the process is more like remembering something slightly different every day for a week or so until you zero in on the exact right form.

Essentially, you’re seeing the effects of a relatively simple neural model converging in a nice, repeatable clinical situation. Fun, eh? Eventually the model adapts, and stops changing enough to notice,

until the patient stops taking it, and the reverse process tales place.

You forgot to mention that; psychoactive drugs like Paxil that affect these regulatory mechanisms often have to be withdrawn gradually, to prevent a kind of crash that can cause significant problems.

It’s possible that the reverse process has a greater effect because the normal control point is nearer one extreme than the other. In other words, decreasing levels by a small amount might have a more dramatic effect than increasing levels by the same amount, if the normal levels are near zero.

* * * * *

It might have escaped notice in all that verbiage, but it should have been clear that the effect of Paxil is almost certainly caused by whatever takes place in the brain to regulate levels of serotonin. If it was due to the direct effect it would occur much more rapidly, in thirty minutes or so, as you pointed out.

So it’s not really a serotonin effect, after all. We have to assume the regulatory mechanisms work just fine, and serotonin levels are back in the right range by the time the clinical effect is established. The clinical effects must be due entirely to the changes required to bring the system back into regulation.

To return to the chemical plant analogy, imagine one of the raw chemicals is out of spec, and we have to run the control loops at an extremely high setpoint.

So the actual electrical current in those loops is near the limit of 20 milliamps; now imagine the increased magnetic and electrical fields near the control wiring drive away the colonies of spiders that have been dropping tiny bits of web into the process since the plant was built.

Imagine further that those bits of web were the secret ingredient that made the process work so well. It’s possible that the spiders would come back again, once you get the right feedstock and lower the control points to something closer to the 4 milliamp end of the scale.

But it could take a while, and it’s easy to imagine cases in which they never come back. The plant might never again be able to make good product, and nobody would have the slightest clue why.

That’s not to suggest a similar thing happens with Paxil, of course. That’s what clinical trials are for, and tests on animal subjects, and so on. But the rest of the chemical plant analogy is a pretty good metaphor, and the regulatory model at least suggests a good place to start looking for what’s actually happening with drugs that are like Paxil in the way their effect develops.

Stabile, I agree in principle. As I said population geneticists, evolutionary biologists and individuals in similar disciplines have a much bigger picture view. The medical profession is indeed flawed if they insist on a myopic view uninformed by other disciplines.

Having said that, it falls short of saying that they cannot and will not make important advances. The fact is, that for a lot of people ADD is a problem in the context of modern living. It may be a misnomer, and it may well not even be a disorder per say outside this context. Howerver the context is unlikely to be intentionally changed any time soon.

Ideally society would be intentionally modified to be a bit more flexible and inclusive to other normal human variations in neurological function. Until such time as it is though, there is a need for treatment.

To my mind ADD is no more a 'disorder' (As in something being broken) than lactose intolerance is (Lactose intolerance is the norm for 80% of humanity and ALL other mammals on earth. The mutation that allows some human groups to digest milk into adulthood is the exception to the rule, not the norm). A better example would be dyslexia. Dyslexia, clearly causes problems in education and function for those who have it. It is not, however, in most cases due to a physical injury or insult to the brain, nor is it normally due to any identifiable pathology. It's a normal variation in human nuerological function that happens to make learning one particular set of skills (reading and writing) more difficult for those who have it. It's contextual in this sense because reading and writing are not particularly natural behaviors. There's no particular reason we'd be naturally good at either except for happenstance.

I am not of the opinion that calling ADD something other than a disorder would be much help at present. Largely because it would, for many people, justify their position that it either doesn't exist or isn't a particularly bad problem. The fact that it isn't a truly medical disorder (but, interestingly enough can have truly medical consequences if not treated in an environment particularly hostile to it) doesn't mean the difficulties people with this particular neurological variation have are not real. Placing the onus for needed changes in society on doctors would be silly. One can hardly blame them for focussing on the pathological aspects of it. It's what they do. It might be better all around if they were better informed by other disciplines and that is beginning to happen.

E-boy, I love you!:D
The medical anthropologist in me is dancing a little jig.
Context is everything! Without context, there is no value or meaning!
In the sturcture of my brain, the neurology just is. In society, my neurology is ADD.

Is pathology without suffering illness? Is aberation without difficulty a handicap?

Love seems a little over the top.... I mean especially without even a first date.....

What would my mother say?!

The Traeals Will Allways Be Subjet On Weather Its Falw Or Not Good Scine Or Bad....must Need To Look At So Meny Things That They Dont Look At No Def Porffe Ither Way Can Come Out Such Studdys They Help At Best To Point Somethings Out At Worcrt They Say That The Add Dose Not Existed
An Others As Well

When They Look At The Big Picher Then We See Leesss Flawd Studys

Dorm

What would my mother say?!'get in there my son' ...

perhaps ...?...

~ps~
nonBritlanders (and perhaps any Britishers incapable of speaking Essexshire)
might need this (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/woman/story/0,,1771643,00.html)

"My friends teased me - they had that 'get in there my son' mentality."... from our finest newspaper the 'Guardian'

whoa Nelly ... from that same article

Sue and I were friends before anything else. I was 21 at the time, she was 34. There was an instant attraction for me - Sue is small, blonde and beautiful and seemed bubbly and outgoing. 34 + 3 (approx) = E-boy
21 + 3 (approx) = Proscrire (shssshhh!)

3 is the magic number.

21? Couldn't get me to go back there...

Ok, Eboy, I take it back. I don't love you. It must have been some latent academic thrill. :p

It's okay. I get acedemic thrills too. :-) Another great piece of wisdom passed on to me about ADD was from a life and career counselor who specializes in folks with ADD and other neurological variants. Her advice was to avoid trying to be like everyone else when it comes to finding your niche and making a living. Instead, she advised, one should follow one's truly passionate interests because those aren't only spectacularly easy for us to focus on, but we focus on them better than most folks focus on anything. Put an ADDer in their area of interest (best description I ever heard for the syndrome was Hallowell's 'interest based central nervous system') and they excell. Unfortunately, even in our areas of interest there may be things we have to learn and do that we have difficulty with, but at least you can minimize and offset that with this approach.

My particular passion is, very fortunately, quite general in scope. It is, in a nutshell, a deep, abiding, and intensely passionate interest in what it is that makes us human.

"You keep saying that you’re only human
-but-
To me it's such a thing - to be 'only human' here"
~Aimee Mann~

humanThe search for what makes us human - *makes* us more human ... the more human - the more individual *also*.

... :-)

what make us human?
to understand our context?
to have meaning?
to know why?

... the point *is* the question though.
or rather the point is found within the search for the answer.

When we discover the answer -
- which we will -

one day

- well

one day

... everything changes :-) ... ... ...

The solution is 42.
Thw question is 'list all questions with solution 42?'

Twinnythe pooh
Twinny the pooh
Fluffy little cuddly ole' bear they call him

ADD's frequency in the gene pool suggests that it is adaptive (two percent or more of a population having a genetically determined trait strongly suggests the trait is adaptive and propogating). While it's clearly not adaptive in the "modern societal" context, it's important to keep in mind that from a geological time perspective (biological change occurs on this time scale) modern society isn't even a blink of the eye, so to speak. Our biology hasn't had the opportunity to catch up with cultural and technological change.
This sounds a lot like what Thom Hartmann speaks of when he mentions tribes in other parts of the world that are almost entirely ADD like in the way they act and react. They fit right in, in thier society. Unlike us in our society.

Did you know that morning sickness is thought to have been a way to keep mothers from eating foods that are differant from the usually, safe diet? Foods or strange berries or nuts that are poisenous in the wild could harm the unborn fetus. Also conditions like Asthma, cystic fibrosis, odesity, sickle cell enemia, tay-sachs disease, all have evolutionary roots.

Medications help us to live in a society that is differant from the one we would fit in best.

Another great piece of wisdom passed on to me about ADD was from a life and career counselor who specializes in folks with ADD and other neurological variants. Her advice was to avoid trying to be like everyone else when it comes to finding your niche and making a living.

Wow this took a counselor with a specialty? All I did was live. I not only quit trying to be normal in the way I make a living I quit trying to be normal period. I am me and do try to be considerate but I also expect the same in return.


Instead, she advised, one should follow one's truly passionate interests because those aren't only spectacularly easy for us to focus on, but we focus on them better than most folks focus on anything.

Would that be a singular or a plural?






what make us human?
to understand our context?
to have meaning?
to know why?

... the point *is* the question though.
or rather the point is found within the search for the answer.

I thought the exact same thing.

Why do we want to know what makes us human?

Why look for meaning?

Why do we wonder why?

I feel like I am seven again.




Oddjobace signature will learn how to live until I don't live here anymore

I like your signature

I am flipping through ols searches and stuff wondering what all this crap in my docuements is. Any way some thing of interest I noticed in an old search save is the amount of crap they blame on "working memory deficit" "frontal lobe dysfunctions"

Cognitive Symptoms of Depression (http://www.medscape.com/infosite/nsi/content/article-1005-symptoms)

Depression is associated with diminished cognitive function in a range of domains, including attention, memory and executive functioning. Cognitive symptoms of depression can have a profound effect on patients' ability to manage the demands of everyday life and are significant factors affecting capacity to function both interpersonally and occupationally.***End Quote


Speed and accuracy on tests of executive function in obsessive-compulsive disorder (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15050790&dopt=Abstract)

Recent research suggests that slowness in OCD may be particularly evident on tests of executive function subserved by frontostriatal circuitry***End Quote


Neuropsychological correlates of diffusion tensor imaging in schizophrenia (http://pnl.bwh.harvard.edu/pub/papers_html/nestorNeuropsych04.html)

Among patients but not controls, lower levels of declarative-episodic verbal memory correlated with reduced left UF, whereas executive function errors related to performance monitoring correlated with reduced left CB. The data suggested abnormal DTI patterns linking declarative-episodic verbal memory deficits to the left UF and executive function deficits to the left CB among patients with schizophrenia.***End Quote


Sounds closer to medical executive junk drawer. We don't know what it is or what causes it so it must be the executive functions and working memory impairment. It sound closer too many dysfunctional executive with a working problem in there some where that figure we don’t have a memory. The "brain part" to blame that comes in second place the cerebellum.


This is almost as bad as the chiropractor than claims that diabetes, hypertensions and the common cold are due to improper back alignment.

The search for what makes us human - *makes* us more human ... the more human - the more individual *also*.

... :-)

what make us human?
to understand our context?
to have meaning?
to know why?

... the point *is* the question though.
or rather the point is found within the search for the answer.

When we discover the answer -
- which we will -

one day

- well

one day

... everything changes :-) ... ... ...

The solution is 42.
Thw question is 'list all questions with solution 42?'



yes, yes, yes, yes!!!!

heya Wheezie!
:-)

... the point *is* the question though.
or rather the point is found within the search for the answer.

When we discover the answer -
- which we will -

one day

- well

one day

... everything changes :-) ... ... ...



everything and nothing.

once we find the answer,
will there still be a point?
or will we find more (complexer and complexer) questions?
maybe that's the point....

the horizon is always
everywhere

'curiouser and curiouser'

w. :*)

We quest for the answers to the ultimate questions. Particularly questions about ultimate meaning and purpose... All the while we create them ourselves.

My point? Well, to quote a tired old saw "Life is what you make it".

or will we find more (complexer and complexer) questions? We quest for the answers to the ultimate questions. Particularly questions about ultimate meaning and purpose... All the while we create them ourselves.
egads! same plane of many , (s)

drummers, (seen Drumline(s)?) is what we do,
unfair to hit, actually, keep ground, let drum speak for you, aha

eventually, simplified (organized) now,
more room for playing,
clearing the field, nature organizes, messes it up by playing, clean up time again,

the void is both.

being universe in universe, jes' a glimpse

&&&

^^ freeing to be what you want.

all simply that

take it would u?

disorders,
order achieved by disorder,
vice 2 versa

the order leaves a mess
?! :faint:. the other way around? unsure

aha,
there goes the law and punishment,
non-important is keeping it,
that way for the least I think

see? law bases from "order is order not disorder in the least" pureness, blahness, gimme pure death if true

pure world - not allowed to eat, or be living for the heck of it,
the unlived world

sleeping wakeness true for me,

ahh! gotta go

... hiya qk ...

- please can you help me out?

I have 1 series of posts which I cannot understand.
Please can you give me a sentence or two with some advice on a best interpretation?
The individual is a nuclear physicist and is extremely abstract.
All I need is something like - 'this ADDF member is describing ...'

I have ***no*** idea what these posts are about.
And - if the truth were known - I actually suffered intense pain trying to make sense of these ideas.
The experience is analagous to listening to static - and trying to make out the tune.
The posts make so little sense to me - that for the first time since I've been here - I posted the following "I sincerely apologise if any here experience the same feeling of abject despair when they read my posts, as I do when I read -these- posts ... there's an implicit agreement when an individual posts - the agreement that he or she'd like to be understood by any that try.
Try it out - and incidentally - this poster began his or her posting career here - with another name - and with an initial request for help - because of his or her fear of sexual abuse in his or her kids by his or her neighbour.
The poster appeared to change gender.
And location (from France to America).

post#1 (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=313754&postcount=307)
by ADDF member monkeyche ->- Boots.
There're 18 posts following on from that one (in the thread) by Boots.

Here's the second:
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
"sorry still haven't read. Shamefully disclaiming. it's the aquaman effect. I have two things to say. you all suck eggnog. In a loving way. Tell the teacher were surfing. Surfing USA. Is that the phone I hear ringing? none of this means anything. me4 IGOTIT. Or I forgot it or not. So now I clear my cache zero out. I am SO Stupid. Now what? Where do we go from here. Where were we? ~KB_US. __________________ signed, +-...-...-+ specia-list(er)"

drummers, (seen Drumline(s)?) is what we do, unfair to hit, actually, keep ground, let drum speak for you, ahaI think that you are alluding to the importance of radio waves in our evolution?
I believe that emergent evolution is responsible for radio waves ascending the EM spectrum:
Radio waves ->- Infrared ->- Vis ->- UV ->- g ->- X
The broad classifications of waves within the EM spectrum may be progressively more energetically loaded emergent structures (E=frequency.wavelength) whereby X rays are (in effect) more efficient receptacles for energy.
... ... the problem though in making this statement (The broad classifications ... ... ...) - include - as examples - the wide wavelength band in which radio waves inhabit and observations similar to the overlap between gamma and X-ray radiation.

eventually, simplified (organized) now, more room for playing, clearing the field, nature organizes, messes it up by playing, clean up time again, I think that this is your expression of what I call Universal Theory of Evolution - Universal Theory of Physiology.
It'll come as no surprise to any of us - to understand that energetic concerns govern every aspect of our past development, current and future development.
There is only energy.
A novel emergent property confers a novel characteristic.
This characteristic is responsible for physiological processes.
Importantly though evolution and physiology are Universal ideas - which also apply outside of the domain of life.
Simply - an emergent structure comes along (wikiP is great on Emergent Structures) eg mind ... that's the emergent structure - generated following an emergent evolutionary event.
The physiology which we are capable of - on account of mind (of course - thinking) - is the particular instantiation of the Universal Theory of Physiology.
Importantly though - there's an intimate link between evolution and physiology here.
So ...
{from qk}"nature organizes,"{from qk} ->- emergent evolution of structure.

{from qk}"messes it up by playing"{from qk}->- physiological processes which we become capable of - following the emergent evolution of a specific structure (with specific characteristics).

The intention of:
{from qk}"messes it up by playing"{from qk}
is to lead us to another emergent event ...
{from qk}"nature organizes,"{from qk}

I describe the two emergent events as each leading to layers of abstraction.
Physiology operates on a layer of abstraction.
The key observation is that the energetic content with increasing layer of abstraction - increases.
Layer is built upon layer - of abstraction layer.
It's entirely appropriate to view this idea by vizualizing the Kalinka Russian doll set - where concentric dolls are found - all identical bar size - each one - within the other.

disorders, order achieved by disorder, vice 2 versa the order leaves a mess ?! :faint:. the other way around? unsure, aha,I think that your idea here is similar to previously ...
{from qk}"nature organizes,"{from qk} ->- {from qk}"messes it up by playing"{from qk}
... so - yes ->- kinda' order ->- disorder ->- order ... etc ...
{from qk}" unsure, aha,"{from qk} Ok - so evolution *is* unidirectional - and so we can firm up your certainty on this particular pattern.

there goes the law and punishment, non-important is keeping it, that way for the least I thinkI'm really not sure - but I think you're getting at the idea that ...
law and punishment are expressions of codified morality.
Morality is, though - personal.
A single morality for all - is not possible.
Have I interpreted your idea correctly here?
I think that it's important to maintain a system of law and punishment until we ('man') - get to grips with some of the ideas which we express.
So - just two idea - a well developed mind is a moral mind by definition (it's an inevitable byproduct of the general metamodel web) - Stabile calls this property 'enforced moral consistency' ... and secondly - an understanding that the mind voices legacy behaviours - the principle underlying our (Ian's) monster :-) thread on ADDF entitled 'Evolutionary Psychology'.

see? law bases from "order is order not disorder in the least" pureness, blahness, gimme pure death if true
pure world - not allowed to eat, or be living for the heck of it,
the unlived world I think I understand what you mean - honestly though - I'm sorry if you consider the ideas with which I colour your words ridiculous, simplistic, inane - that's not my intention at all ... ... ...
I think that you're associating order with derisory properties.
That's just not right.
Simply - free choice (your real desire) predicates on the order which (I think) you are echoing your disapproval of.
... so what do I mean?
... a picture ...
Free choice is the ability to choose the left or right path.
Can you see that a tree is the same structure as free choice?
A branch splits in two.
Each of those branches might then - themselves - split in two.
My point is - is that the order and structure which I often allude to - are seen outside the classical domain - of shapes with mass.
There's really nothing wrong with order.
Don't confuse it with uniformity.
Information content (IC) must increase.
Naturally - IC doesn't increase if the structure is bland {from qk}'blahness, gimme pure death'{from qk}.
The most important goal which we pursue - which generated us - is the drive towards construction of an ordered structure of great complexity.
The taste of your usage is kinda' a mischaracterization.
Order isn't bad.
I'm not too sure of your context for 'pure' - is it 'pure' as in completely logical?
I think that
{from qk}"not allowed to eat"{from qk}
{from qk}"or be living for the heck of it"{from qk}
{from qk}"the unlived world"{from qk}

... are expressions that we're composed of particles which're themselves generated off the back of waves - and that there's a nagging sensation which we experience - 'the desire to return home.'
Sorry qk - is that even vaguely close to the idea which you were seeking to express?
I can generate several different interpretations on each of these lines - but the one I offer - is the closest under the assumption that there's some commonality between these three lines.

sleeping wakeness true for me,Interestingly - Stabile defines this basic idea as being a relatively recent trend in modern thought.
It's the principle of Neo waking up, or of whether Arnie actually does wake up in 'Total Recall' ...

Hmmm ... apologies if I've completely misinterpreted your post.
I've tried to use plain English - to be as unambiguous as possible
- to communicate.

There's this guy at work - he's mastered using words which are subject to such extreme latitude in interpretation - that nobody understands him. In his case - that mechanism of communication is based around his desire to not do any work.
Nobody can pin him down - because nobody knows what he means.

Funny thing communication - Stabile describes it as bilateral - and as usual - Tom and Kay are correct ... if one doesn't try to help others to understand your ideas - you'll find that people just switch off.

Anyhow - any help on the meaning in those posts would be gratefully received.

once we find the answer, will there still be a point?
or will we find more (complexer and complexer) questions? maybe that's the point....
The box is filled with sand.
We push some more sand in and the box changes shape - into a large sack.

The box is brain{mind} and the sand is information

"once we find the answer, will there still be a point?"
~yes~ because ...
"we will find more (complexer and complexer) questions"
... and ... yes ...
"that's the point..."

Man takes mind as its chosen route of evolution - the general pattern which we will see is of cortical (the mind) neurones groing in numbers - advancing into 'funny' parts of our brain - but also changing shape from their kinda' chubby centred structure - into - simply a highly structured arrangement - not dissimilar to spaghetti
*though* importantly
... highly structured
... unlike :-) any spaghetti which I have ever cooked.

wanna chat? SB?

peeeps can watch. from exp (go RPG's) I can do better with more interaction, less at once

they are to enlighten you(s). people are nonsensical.

no one is truely/purely right. stabile, haha, not even close, lol no one is.

subjective settings, gimme an object (fidget to focus) to focus, nice

free willing _ choose what to focus on

'this ADDF member is describing ...' He wants/she more play. a vent. some one to get it.

? painful to an extant. blood and thorns (gooey prickles!! lol)

find ur answers oops, no idea what he/she means

are you sure I'm not LAzy Stupid and `Crazy? ahahaha!!!()()()lmnok ^^^12345567890101234501 ??? 1432988
its her in the moments. to that extreme of creativity to do it every moment every thought.

unpredictable on many levels. supralogic, yes, the web!!! heh branches, web branches, bunch o' sticks? ya! make fire. stones? oopss. (?)
oxygen (?)
ground (?)
with not too many holes????
hands (?)
windless (?) !
trees (?)
slip ing
fiberous wood (?)
not wet (?)
2 cave men (?)
women?
use the bat
not the dinosaur
rock on!

attention drifts, as mine just did! go look to Boots'

lokk at me! listen! haha, i aint attention getting (?)

through me in the bin, then nail me down so I can't move?








__





that tree is you,
between the branches also you and me (which I know)

my choices are mere branches,
also, not so much a web is it?

maybe so, unsureness luckily I am abstract no guilt

u R guilty!! not me! is relevant, *cough I heard that

me=responsibleity you=guilty
guilty, ness responsibleness
SB me

fretting over what? one thing! what is TRUTh SB???

(I told you, you were too much abstract, ha! why am I now?))) (and SB is saying U R inscrutable)

not always present! I don't remember, sometimes not wanting to now, my self ADD seen now.

branching--- seen been always here in context w/o context too

in between the uppss are downs. always

thin (in literature) is just ups or just downs

life in thinness is one sided, over happy or sad, I like being a swinger

baby! ya!

sim mply - an emergent structure comes along (wikiP is great on Emergent Structures) eg mind ... that's the emergent structure - generated following an emergent evolutionary event.yes, life (outside is conciousness) takes on characteristics of Biology (Neurology + Biology)

love simple math! (that)

mind into brain (thanks!) God on Earth (man)

dated is the Bible and that

jes' for the zealous (I don't believe in words like that, embarrassing)

(no persons way is, many way to describe same ness)

(doing w/o knowing is The Way that people mean, and being The Way is great Ok? )

i !s that the phone I hear ringing? none of this means anything. me4 IGOTIT. Or I forgot it or not hahahaha blahahaha ring that gong? hehe clever

nothing does! something doesn't ! ! ! static, all is in tune and static being crazy!

The poster appeared to change gender. Who? the Brahman?

whatdya' mean sir?


half truths is web metalogical

(brahman = to grow //Sans) whole
like trees not trees sheesh
flowers are like it too
webs
the stock market
meadd823
part of it (even the crap) is this

not crappy


dis+respect shows crappiness from not ? in ur court


chaos? thrive, thrive children

clear it up? i aint clearnor unclear ev3r

(help ?) http://abstractatom.com/brahman.htm

go! 4 all

I sincerely apologise if any here experience the same feeling of abject despair when they read my posts, as I do when I read -these- posts ... there's an implicit agreement when an individual posts - the agreement that he or she'd like to be understood by any that try. I do not, I do to myself (what meaning is there) ?

_____
"And - if the truth were known - I actually suffered intense pain trying to make sense of these ideas."

by, Sb

feel it, I do. what truth?! answer? we have come to meet again meat (yum)

pure ADD ? only the Brahman haha now what?

those who ahh n/m

ahh! why? limit of knoweledge ? I have been burdened w/ responsibility in this area. lspiderman

haha am I relavant yet?

hands are cold

(QinkIN

"WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE INCONVENIENCE" -- G0d's Final Message to His Creation

++++++++++++++


finding order in the chaos,
it's a bit of an oxymoron,
*from my point of view/version of reality*


------------------

beauty is infinite,
life is chaos
and
there are no absolutes (almost certainly) ... ;*)

abstractatom (http://abstractatom.com/brahman.htm)

... the articles on that page haven't been posted yet - is that the article which you're referencing?
Message:
This article will be online very soon.

Sorry for the delay.

- Holy blobs Batman -
... this gonna' take some doin'
I thought I understood 'Brahman' 'Brahma' and 'brahmin' ...
will try and work out the contribution which these guys are making - rather the separation between their usage of 'Brahman' and classical usage as the kinda' big enchilada of Hinduism.

Initial read - not very happy with the whole 'structureless' idea - mostly because even if it is true - the Universe of our minds *is* structured.
We have minds - we can feel.
We shouldn't forget the perspective which matters most - regardless of whether it's not Absolutely correct.

I wouldn't want to superimpose arguments of the form -
'no meaning' 'no point' 'no absolutes'
in an absolute RRReal sense
because it undermines the subjective rrreal sense, which is what actually matters to us.

I think that both perspectives need to be taken simultaneously.

I'd more take the angle - the Universe is delivered without the need - at some point in its future to make sense to man.
However - I'd really like to make the observation that a simple repeating pattern which repeats over and over - will give us seemingly intelligently designed things.
Kinda' like the structures of olivine, diamond, buckyballs ... ... ...
... but when seen through the eyes of the single simple rule - these shapes are 'inevitable'.
Not the specifics - but the form.
The architecture.

The repeating pattern is the architecture of the architectures of RRReality.
A definition of geometric topologies of shapes which occur within our Universe.

I like the next bit.
The same process which I describe above - delivers mind.

Mind then has a structure.

This structure (because it will possess one of the few simple repeating patterns) - the pattern defines a sequential series of geometric shapes ...
I use 1d 3d,4d,13d(1d) to denote these

d->dimensional

... to define these structures, shapes, geometries

...so ... we can see that in a mind of
13d
that other structures of
1
3
4
13
(1)
... and transition states
can potentially be encapsulated.

- So -

~1~
meaning? - does it exist
from {qk and Boots}
~2~
no Absolutes
from Wheezie

~1~
... yes meaning exists - because it's *built into* our reality.
Absolute meaning built into our reality - because we are creations delivered by the Absolute.
So - rrreality is an effective RRReality mimic - though less so - 'sure'
I guess an image of a guy with a spiral galaxy through hieher forehead -
-works- here.
~2~
no Absolutes
... if we're in a closed box (energetically) ( oh my! I've just felt a little claustrophobic :-) ) Universe - maybe there's an absolute - we could give it a beard - but it'd just get food caught up in it.
yucky yucky yuck yuck.

Importantly - the pattern allows us to gain some understandng of the route from here to that air-conditioned beardy?less? one's boudoir.

"finding order in the chaos,
it's a bit of an oxymoron"

exactly - because chaos isn't random -
isn't all over the shop.
There *are* patterns.

All the mind can do is pattern match.

And the mind was delivered by an Absolute which works in patterns.

Oh - if only we could define the structure of mind.

But - isn't it a 13-dimensional logical structure?

The ADDer mind has as major
component ->- the metamodel web
with chief
characteristic ->- its 13-dimensional logical form

Oh yeah!!!

cool!!!

Fancy a cookie?

through me in the bin, then nail me down so I can't move? ... not tonight dear, I have rather a dull pneumatic cerebral sensation.

"WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE INCONVENIENCE" -- G0d's Final Message to His Creation

++++++++++++++


finding order in the chaos,
it's a bit of an oxymoron,
*from my point of view/version of reality*


------------------

beauty is infinite,
life is chaos
and
there are no absolutes (almost certainly) ... ;*)


Yeah, but that was a totally insincere apology and stuff.

I wouldn't want to superimpose arguments of the form -
'no meaning' 'no point' 'no absolutes'
in an absolute RRReal sense
because it undermines the subjective rrreal sense, which is what actually matters to us.

I think that both perspectives need to be taken simultaneously.my friend, yes! a burden to me, am I never satisfied cuz' of this. objective reality is not enough, not enough

contrary to reality, no choices involved really

yes, to me there is no point" no contradictions in reality" that we insist, proving we are not to rule over all, cuz' we kinda are flawed, we are just unsure, depressed as a whole.

crying now for real*

that much I do go with that feeling on a single pointed effort.
my value, no more though. Careful, I get disillusioned.

All the mind can do is pattern match.I'm a process!!!??? no good!!! not imitating!

What is it? DNA pattern matches? what? what is a Helix based on? patho- why Helix?

all is conciousness, like the mind (ours is the same conciousness)

Plato, everyone, Hitler, Tammy, Boots, Watts, Metzinger, Confucious, John Lennon

the environment, the 6 (?) senses we have allow the conciousness to play/alter with space/time to the curiousest degree you know?




This structure (because it will possess one of the few simple repeating patterns) - the pattern defines a sequential series of geometric shapes ...
I use 1d 3d,4d,13d(1d) to denote these

depends on magnification. Watts saw it, yes. He thought the universe is a Mutual Web. Life is a transactional process. All is, organism like. conciousness, as I said, is obvious in organism
(that which encapsulates*)


what are u doing, SB?


awakening into the 13d conciousness (encapsulated)

the Buddha maker.

all the while (one is man, (separate, not really (illusion of mind/conciousness/1 if 1, are that pattern, 1 switches to 13d, 1d, 2d, 3d, 4d, 13d, 1d.

good explanation!

done well, now what? (is it worth it) ? to make due, it must be. evolution won't let me down, I hope (?)

will conciousness kill me off? there goes my "choice" assumption.

more vulnerable than ever, cold. light doesn't have to win, righto , Alan.

redefine God, please

the best is Brahman, that I know of

eww.... no need right now.
why?



initial read - not very happy with the whole 'structureless' idea - mostly because even if it is true - the Universe of our minds *is* structured.
We have minds - we can feel.
what? it must be unstructured to allow structure, it's like a playing field, sorta' messy, always balanced.

aspergers (you are not). see bigger. our minds are structured. we feel, therefore unstructured all the time

highly specialized tubes. organisms, who think they are smart. not seeing enough they are independent (truly), possessing (seperate) choice. like me i guess.

reality is largely and also accurately*** defined by ART alone. mnay forms, a few I accept. i redefine my artistic flavors, look at my older posts, ha.

gotta go, though

bye,
nice speaking to you

The mind does far more than pattern match. Without value weighting rational thought is impossible and the emotional centers handle that.

pattern matching neural models of the brain have been repeatedly demonstrated to be flawed. Why? Because the brain isn't one unified functional whole. It's a series of modules (many of them doing double and triple duty) may of which work in VERY different ways. The visual modules (all fifty of them) for example are laid out differently and function differently than the olfactory or auditory modules. Each based on a relatively small variety of neuron types but laid out and optimized for its own specific function. The visual processing hardware can, under the right circumstances (surgery being one such circumstance) process auditory input, but it does so poorly. Although probably not so poorly as the auditory cortex handles Visual input if it's given to it.

Some of the brains systems work substantially faster than and almost independently of others.

My favorite theory of consciousness is still, in essence, one of pattern matching. But it's pattern matching beginning at the low (homeostasis) level on up to working and long term memory and the cognitive centers. Antonia Demasio lays it out in his book "The Feeling of what happens". In short, he believe that 'Core consciousness' is created by the feedback between the body and the 'body images' or representations in the brain stem that govern homeostasis, and drives like hunger, thirst and arousal. In short, you literally need a body, emotions, drives, and visceral 'gut feelings' to establish consciousness, as well has the brain we've been giving most of the credit to. From there expanding working, short term, and long term memory, combined with higher cognitive functions provide the more richly expansive variety of consciousness most of us enjoy.

As I said, this is still, essentially, pattern recognition. However, not all the work is or even can be done by associative type networks. Also the brain is quite obviously not a general purpose computing device, but instead a product of natural selection. People will often go on at some lenght about how 'perfectly designed' an evolved system is, but they tend to overlook a lot of the less elegant solutions nature has come up with. The human body as a whole, for example is exquisitely well adapted in some ways. Wonderfully intricate neural hardware there to handle the needs of such a highly social creature as ourselves. We are also among the best adapted endurance runners on planet earth (quite possibly the best period). However, there are flies in the ointment. Most of the hardware we use to walk bipedally is still only partially modified from the days when our ancestors were quadropeds. Our backs tend to wear out easily, our joints (particularly the weight bearing ones) have similar issues. There are any number of other examples of what would appear to be '**** poor design' and shoddy workmanship in our physiology. The same is true for most animals. Short cuts were taken with our brain as well.

Which is why, it's dangerously misleading to take the 'computational device' theory of brain function as too close an analogy. A big hint that it's not entirely the right idea is the fact that many of the things we find exceedingly easy to do are fiendishly difficult to duplicate with electronics. While many of the things electronics are particularly good at, are things we stink on ice at doing.

Add to this that brains do far more than passively recognize patterns. They create new ones as well. Pattern recognitions and associative learning networks don't do well with creating anything. Nor can they even come close to handling the functions we carry out routinely in spoken language.

I need to get deeper into this subject :-)

The mind does far more than pattern match. Without value weighting rational thought is impossible and the emotional centers handle that. Isn't that a pattern of patterns though?
pattern 1 ->- bird overhead
pattern 2 ->- car approaching fast
pattern 3 ->- slight itch on left hand

pattern 4 ->- pattern 2>>1>>3

ooopsy ->- [post-edit] example above not 'rational' thought - similar principle applies though.}
I have the term 'hierarchical logical structure' kicking me in the shins as I type ... :-)

And thereby the mind still effectively characterized using the term 'pattern matcher' alone?

Add to this that brains do far more than passively recognize patterns. They create new ones as well. Pattern recognitions and associative learning networks don't do well with creating anything. Nor can they even come close to handling the functions we carry out routinely in spoken language.Completely accepted - relating to learning novel patterns, developing thoroughly novel patterns - and about the difference between man and computer - but aren't these ideas effectively subsumed by 'pattern-matching'.
And thereby, 'pattern matcher' holds?

I think perhaps I'm stretching 'pattern-matching' outta' shape :-)

SB :-) I really wish I had the scientific mind you have...I am sad I never have a clue about this stuff

Well SB I did say I basically still agree with you, although I'm sure it sounds like I don't. Just wanted to clarify that we aren't talking about a single type of structure doing the work. Basically I'm saying that instead of one big machine handling everything (and probably doing it badly) we have a bunch of interconnected little ones, all of them handling their own things, usually in different ways.

The key point though, is that no specific logical structure alone can do the job. For that matter, it looks very likely like no combination of many different sorts of logical structures can do the job either.... at least not independently of a working body to go with the brain with drives, instincts, urges, hormones, glands, circulatory systems etc... all coming together in a complex dance that it's thought might be what brings about the core sense of 'self', or as Demasio put it in his book title "the feeling of what happens" That's what I was getting at earlier when I said the "computational model" of the brain, while it's the handiest analogy we have isn't an exact one by any means. Some aspects of brain function are roughly computer like and many don't resemble any sort of computer function. It's a mistake to lose track of variables like these. Natural selection, after all, isn't an engineer. More like a tinkerer working with existing parts rather than designing new ones from whole cloth.

Bah, I'm not at all sure if I'm making my point

...I am sad ...I think that we live in a world where science has been fragmented down from discipline into countless sub-disciplines. Layer after layer of jargon - and the only overall effect - that nobody can keep up with whatever's going on.

When I got mine, I couldn't work out why phd/dphil had 'ph il osophy' as part of its acronym - I hadn't done much thinking {the nature of the beast of human genetics - which is mostly doing and not thinking}
... ... ... but now I do kinda' realise why.

I think that there's a really huge pattern which exists in our reality -
a simple pattern which repeats and which defines the structure of things which we can see, can't see ... can touch, can't touch
~etc~
~etc~
~etc~

... and when one gets to grips with that pattern
- (in effect)
... by immersing oneself deeply in one area of thought
- that one automatically buys into the right to apply this pattern elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong though - not saying that a phd is a prerequisite - one of my stock phrases from post #1 - #500 was something kinda' like
- learning is all that matters
- where learning is not necessarily anything to do with formal Institutional education, certificates etc {though ideally it should} ... ...

OK - so I have only ever been in and around Universities
- periods in pharma and biotech - all short
... and I've swept through all of the big UK Uni's - calling a halt at Cambridge.

So - I know a heap buncha' academics
- pretty much only know academics.

Now the guys on this forum squash many of the academics I know - *even* in the academics field of expertise.
I believe that the reason for this observation actually comes down to the increased rate of uptake and processing of information - and the deeper inferences which the full-on ADDer can make
... once the raving ADDer has that pattern.

And this thread alone contains a number of the thinkers to whom I'm alluding.

Ooopsy -
- my point -
'learning is all that matters - where learning is not necessarily anything to do with formal Institutional education, certificates etc'
:-)

- the guys I know in academia have the certificate. The guys here maybe do not. But the guys here are better.
It's difficult to offer this perspective over though - ADDers being jolly nice chaps just pass it off as one of their jolly nice friends being jolly nice - but it's true.
... And Trace ... tell you what ... I can even prove why ADDers are better at this sort of thing ... to cut a long story short
- it's all about

... 'thinking' && 'data driven engine' && 'FEED ME' ...

So - I guess I'm saying that it's all a bit fake (any kinda' illusion that I seem to know anything) - since the pattern pervades - one does not actually need to pursue phd after phd - it's kinda' more - learn the trick and then play thr trick.

I believe that ADDF has explicitly identified the nature of the trick.

:-)

So - any illusion of my knowing anything about anything - is just basking in the glow of that pattern {of evolution}
{which I won't mention again}
{because you'll just call me boring}

... and ...

Lesson #1
DON'T bore the ADDer

:-)

Sorry!
{from immediately previous post}

{though ideally it should} ->- {though ideally they should help}

The thing that casts doubt on ADHD being a real diagnosis is that it fails to meet the philosopher Karl Popper's litmus test of FALSIFIABILITY.

Consider: show me any talented, absentminded underachieving stumblebum, and I defy you to prove he does NOT have ADHD. (Not so, say, diabetes.)

ANd imaginative people are notoriously lazy and highly suggestable, so it's easy for such a one to look at the laundry list of "symptoms" and say "That's me!" But for practical purposes it's about as useful and scientific an explanation as saying "I'm a Capricorn!"

All I know is, the drugs really work and have turned my life around. All I care about is RESULTS.

Hell, did you know what made the Finnish composer Sibelius so productive. He'd start a work session with a full quart of vodka next to him, and next day there he'd be, passed out, bottle drained, and sheafs of brilliant manuscript. HE COMPOSED while drunk as a wheelbarrow. Same it seems with Mussorsky, the Russian composer (Pictures at an Exhibition). During his brief career, as Victor Borge quipped, he diminished more fifths than any composer in the country.

Whatever works,....I suppose, is all that matters.


##

this pattern of imitation (nature of imitation)

no, universe does not repeat itself. no two stars are the same.

no two thoughts (contextuallY) in 4d and up could be the same. more difficult, at least. in 13d, it is all the same

I do agree 13d, all becomes one.

imitative? nope, what has reality to imitate?

uh... doh! no ideas here. only (bum, bum , bum)

itself so (an idea from BC times, lol). self propelling, massive organism. always there (like matter) can die, like me. my mind+matter = density?

lol


But for practical purposes it's about as useful and scientific an explanation as saying "I'm a Capricorn!"
yes!, that's what decisions come down to, lol. sorry charlie. we have no choice, decisions happen to us, quite spontaneous, eh?


all I know is, the drugs really work and have turned my life around. All I care about is RESULTS.
yes! they should be wrong, in some way of logic (speed for already hyper people with racing minds?) it should not be right. Funness, most determinant factor.

Not what should be, what is. i like you. RESULTS, not unlike what IS-HAPPENING-AND-I-FEEL-OK-DOKEY

gotta run again, lol

bye

:-) there are a couple of things which I don't drop into on ADDF
- generally - whether ADD exists?
and
- whether stimulant meds work?
... I know that ADD exists and that stimulant meds work - I can't even bring myself to debate these questions
- from my own (and many ADDer) personal perspectives it's a no-brainer
- though -
- I do kinda' accept that it's a peculiar thing ADD - in that one rather has to *have* it - to 'get' it :-).

As an aside - the interesting points (as you mentioned) - to pull out from the story of ADD are -
{P}Consider: show me any ...{R}
why the peculiar ubiquity? ... the answer will lie in ADD being more than just a disorder affecting a select handful. More so though - you mentioned a handful of tied behaviours - why do these travel together - with ADD? The answer to that question will lie in all of these traits being direct secondary characteristics arising from a more fundamental 'real' separator (or basis) between ADD and the other (so-called normal) state.

{P}All I know is, the drugs really work and have turned my life around. All I care about is RESULTS. {R}
{P}Whatever works,....I suppose, is all that matters.{R}
...?... even self-medication
{P}Sibelius, Mussorgsky{R}

We have enough of a handle on the couple of drugs - though really one might restrict oneself to the single chemical dextroamphetamine sulphate - to know which neurotransmitter system it's hitting.
{P}"He'd start a work session with a full quart of vodka next to him, and next day there he'd be, passed out, bottle drained, and sheafs of brilliant manuscript. HE COMPOSED while drunk as a wheelbarrow."{R}
... importantly ... *alcohol* stimulates the exact same central neuroT system.
One then begins to understand the association between pathological addictive behavious and ADD.
I am willing to bet that alcoholic tendencies can be curbed with dexedrine.
Why?
Personal experience (and throw a nicotine addiction in there for good measure).

... so for sure - I kinda' agree ...
{P}All I know is, the drugs really work and have turned my life around. All I care about is RESULTS. Whatever works,....I suppose, is all that matters.{R}

... but a better drug, which works better - would be better ... right?

So - the search begins from a position of some comfort - with dexedrine and a list of characteristics one might expect to see in an ADDer ... from this position though - there's clearly much ground to make up before the basic question of why? is answered.

:-)

[ QUOTE=qk]
no, universe does not repeat itself. no two stars are the same.
no two thoughts (contextuallY) in 4d and up could be the same. more difficult, at least. in 13d, it is all the same
I do agree 13d, all becomes one.
[/QUOTE ]
it's more the architecture - there are many very different men - though all males derive from the same architecture. A different architectural patterns exists for females.

[ QUOTE=qk]
imitative? nope, what has reality to imitate?
[/QUOTE ]
Not so much looking over to copy off another - more that a
{image}
whole buncha' energy starts out at the centre of a nexus of multiple roads and each member of the whole buncha' energy team runs off down a different path - and ends up powering some different weird and wonderful process - though the processes all identically following the rules of what energy is permitted to engage in (the abstraction layer 3,4,13 Russian doll model) - the processes beimg powered - all different though - because of the differences introduced by the different environmental contexts of the different routes.

For instance ... a sunray which hits a plant on Planet Earth will contribute to its growth.
There're plenty of our sun's rays which're never going to be seen by a plant - and which will therefore - in the image above - need to take other paths (be seen to take other paths) in the dissemination of their energy into other form ('powering some different weird and wonderful process').

[ QUOTE=qk]
itself so (an idea from BC times, lol). self propelling, massive organism. always there (like matter) can die, like me. my mind+matter = density?
[/QUOTE ]
The idea I want to get at - is kinda like the hurricane - or the mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion - the mushroom cloud quickly dissipates - the hurricane - not so quickly ...
Incidentally - the shape similarity between hurricane, black hole, pulsar, hourglass nebula ... so many more ... is what I'm getting at.

~"self propelling, massive organism" IS PERFECT (as description).
Imagine a hurricane - coming into being and then continuing to be.
This structure (of course) - fits the pattern ... it represents energetic conversion into an emergent structure - and then a kinda' self powering phenomenon.
~"self propelling, massive organism" IS SWEET (by way of description).

[ QUOTE=qk]
people with racing minds?) it should not be right. Funness, most determinant factor.
[/QUOTE ]
understanding what 'fun' is and what we find 'fun' is really very important - can help to steer us away from mental instabilities - if we follow that particular sense.

Basically I'm saying that instead of one big machine handling everything (and probably doing it badly) we have a bunch of interconnected little ones, all of them handling their own things, usually in different ways. ... would it be so bad to say something along the lines that these interconnected little engines on level 0 - combine to give a single structure on level 1 - that they themselves give rise to a facility which is much greater than the sum of their individual functionalities.
Which'd kinda mean that the model incorporates a large number of little machines - but also 1 uber-machine.
So the physical array of neural clones being dispersed (for sure)
- but the mind representing a single logical structure (regardless of its distributed architecture)

... it's a tough 'un - but things get a whole bunch harder as conversations flash from layer of abstraction to abstraction -
- a new perspective is always required.

I have always found it bizarre that we don't wonder around in permanent wonderment at the nature of ourselves having molecules - the size of really little things - fundamentally supporting our everything.

I mean - any research into or thinking in quantum mechanics - is by definition - personally interesting.
The quantum dance happens within us all.

It's hot hot hot
and
rivals the tango {in passion} ... ... ...

and you're kinda' sure that the charming chap has enough tricks up his sleeve
- that he always gets his girl.

:-)
eh? quanqinkin

well,

not really sure where to go. oh so bad, wherever I go, it's not what I'm doing, is what I am/actually doing.

blahaha.. to be balanced, not what it seems, lOLhahahhaahaaahahahaha

MAking a matchbook, is closer to the matchbook's reality.

closer to being a matchbook.

off topics R us. i work here, I say I don't have a job.

ignorance, means I lose in the end with unhealthiness.

powerless and powerfull

balance is not powerful nor ''less. a "human god" is *swinging. I want to.

(my choice is gone--> no, it's only part of the Real thing

my resolve is, what?

Something i neglect, admittedly... afraid from my other posts, had been tainted.
*bewaring sloth&torpor (?) anyone?

my earlier ones, full of sin. cuz' i am a fool

i'm through w/guilt, mostly now, outta my system for good goody.

I saw Memento last night, that is me, isn't it? the man who lost his short term memory, if quit focusing. It goes, no difference though.

I am striving towards? Bliss (?) show me what, exactly!

(john frusciante)
if you've gone,
all the good times are wrong, that waaaayyyyy,
up and down***
I'm not sound,
up and down annie stays alive
I wouldn't have it anyother waayyyyyyyyyyyayayaayyy

ophahahaha, right/wrong of never

nneed go


time to sneak aster punton flabber



always QK = YOU

cool ... your signature has one perspective of one of those patterns ... the image ... big perspective yours - it's the dive into inversion ... hurricane, black hole, pulsar, hourglass nebula12345

There isn't anything wrong with what you said silly. I just like being a busy body and unnecessarily clarifying things sometimes. Sometimes even when they don't need clarifying.... DOH!

Hello E-boy,

I for one am glad you "unnecessarily clarifying things", this makes your posts crystal clear for me and I'm sure there are many members who would agree.

Keep up the good work :D

- :):(:o;):mad::rolleyes::cool::eyebrow::eek::foot: :soapbox:

Gee tanks. :-) I actually have a much easier time communicating in text than I do speaking. The act of writing forces me to go linear, or at least to do my best to do so anyway. :-)

I for {one/two} am glad ... really glad.
You have an intuitive grasp over all of this stuff.

... and so Z's comment goes for me too.
your posts are an Island of calm :-) around all of this flowery talk ...
... now to who exactly might this self-referent message be pointing.

{{{shuffles stage left}}}
:-)

ps what Z3 said ->-

:D - :):(:o;):mad::rolleyes::cool::eyebrow::eek::foot: :soapbox:
~noting~
... that each of those faces need be matched by the analogous real world facial contortion - prior to usage (ADDF guidelines).
Each pose need be held for around 3 seconds - and so ... ... ...
the string of 12 smilies - represents a kinda' visual art (no sound) performance lasting 36 seconds - necessarily enacted by both Zach and myself (personal interpretations - just like rrreality) - each separately entitled 'E-boy clearly rocks'
:-) and s